DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed under 37 CFR §1.53(d) for the instant application on December 23, 2025. The Applicants have properly set forth the RCE, which has been entered into the application, and an examination on the merits follows herewith.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8,572,199 to Piper et al. (“Piper”), over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0198124 to McCarthy (“McCarthy”), over U.S. Patent No. 7,035,926 to Cohen et al. (“Cohen”), over U.S. Patent No. 7,149,776 to Roy et al. (“Roy”), and also over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0185951 to Nichols et al. (“Nichols”).
Regarding claim 1, Piper generally teaches enabling users to create an instant chat and message session that is associated with a media object on the web or the Internet (see e.g. column 1, line 58 – column 2, line 13). Like claimed, Piper particularly describes a system comprising:
a communication widget arranged on a website or online application and operated by at least one user (see e.g. column 2, lines 62-67; column 3, lines 29-45; column 5, lines 9-67; and FIGS. 2A-2D: Piper discloses that a web server provides a web interface, e.g. a web page, to a user, wherein the web interface includes an instant or live “commenting tool” that enables the user to leave live comments with respect to a media object displayed within the webpage. The commenting tool is considered a “communication widget” like claimed. Moreover, Piper demonstrates that the commenting tool can be used by a plurality of users – see e.g. column 4, lines 25-37; and column 5, line 58 – column 6, line 9. Accordingly, the commenting tool, i.e. communication widget, described by Piper can be said to be operated by at least one user.);
at least one first user processor configured to access a widget (see e.g. column 2, lines 62-67; column 3, lines 29-45; column 5, lines 9-67; and FIGS. 2A-2D: like noted above, Piper discloses that a web server provides a web interface, e.g. a web page, to a user, wherein the web interface includes an instant or live “commenting tool,” which is considered an instant communication widget like claimed. Piper teaches that the user employs a first user processor, e.g. a computing device executing a web browser, to access the web interface and its commenting tool – see e.g. column 3, lines 29-35.);
at least one second user processor configured to access the widget (see e.g. column 4, lines 25-37: Piper teaches that a second user can access the web page and commenting tool, necessarily using a second user processor such as a computing device executing a web browser.);
a server arranged in communication with the widget (see e.g. column 2, lines 62-67; column 3, lines 29-45; column 5, lines 9-67; and FIGS. 2A-2D: like noted above, Piper discloses that a web server provides a web interface, e.g. a web page, wherein the web interface includes an instant or live “commenting tool,” which is considered an instant communication widget like claimed. Piper further teaches that the server is in communication with the commenting tool, e.g. to record in memory user comments made via the commenting tool – see e.g. column 3, lines 21-28; column 3, lines 46-51; and column 7, lines 10-51.);
a messaging service arranged on the server and configured to continue communication threads displayed via the widget (see e.g. column 4, lines 25-37; column 6, lines 1-9; column 6, lines 40-53; and column 7, lines 27-51: Piper discloses that multiple users can use the commenting tool provided by the server to engage in a conversation between each other, and whereby other users can leave messages and be engaged in the same conversation. The server thus understandably provides a messaging service that enables the users to continue conversations displayed via the commenting tool.);
a database configured to save the communication threads displayed via widgets and arranged on a server (see e.g. column 3, lines 21-28; column 3, lines 46-51; and column 7, lines 10-51: Piper discloses that the server can comprise memory to record comments or conversations made by users via the commenting tool. The memory thus serves as a database to save the communication threads, i.e. conversations, displayed via the commenting tool.);
a communication node configured to collect the communication threads from the communication widget and to save the communication threads in the database (see e.g. column 3, lines 21-51; column 3, lines 46-51; column 7, lines 10-51; and column 8, lines 2-11: as noted above, Piper discloses that the server can comprise memory to record comments or conversations made by users via the commenting tool. The software functionality at the server necessary for receiving the comments or conversations, i.e. communication threads, from the commenting tool and saving the comments or conversations to the memory is considered a “communication node” like claimed.);
a pinning node configured to assign the communication widget to a selected screen element on a user interface on the website displayed on the at least first or second user processor (see e.g. column 3, lines 6-20; column 3, lines 29-45; column 4, lines 48-51; column 5, lines 31-36; and column 7, lines 10-26: Piper discloses that the user can associate the commenting tool with a media object displayed on the webpage so that the user can leave live comments regarding the media object. The software functionality necessary for associating the commenting tool with the media object is considered a “pinning node” like claimed, which is configured to assign the communication widget, i.e. the commenting tool, to a selected screen element, i.e. the media object, on a user interface on the website displayed on the at least first or second user processor.);
wherein the communication widget is available on the website for all users with no prior registration required (see e.g. column 4, line 64 – column 5, line 2: Piper discloses that, in an embodiment, the commenting tool can be automatically activated and enabled upon rendering a media object on the web interface, and that therefore, the users would not need to sign-in or proceed through an authentication process to activate the commenting tool. In such circumstances, the commenting tool would be available to all users with no prior registration required.);
wherein the communication widget is available for a plurality of users viewing the website (see e.g. column 4, lines 25-37; and column 5, line 58 – column 6, line 9: as alluded to above, Piper demonstrates that the commenting tool can be used by a plurality of users viewing the web page. Accordingly, the commenting tool, i.e. communication widget, is available for a plurality of users viewing the web page.);
wherein a communication thread can be started by at least one user who opens the communication widget and manually enters a message (see e.g. column 5, lines 31-67: Piper demonstrates that a communication thread can be started by a user who activates the commenting tool and manually enters a message.);
wherein the pinning node is further configured to assign the communication widget to a selected screen element on a user interface on the website, to blank spaces, or undefined objects upon at least first selection (see e.g. column 3, lines 6-20; column 3, lines 29-45; column 4, lines 48-51; column 5, lines 31-36; and column 7, lines 10-26: like noted above, Piper discloses that the user can associate the commenting tool with a media object displayed on the webpage so that the user can leave live comments regarding the media object. The software functionality, i.e. “pinning node,” necessary for associating the commenting tool with the media object is thus further configured to assign the communication widget, i.e. commenting tool, to a selected screen element, i.e. to media object, on a user interface on the website upon a first user selection. It is noted that claim 1 recites “assign the communication widget to a selected screen element on a user interface on the website, to blank spaces, or undefined objects” and thus the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims requires only one of the “selected screen element,” the “blank spaces” or the “undefined objects.”); and
wherein the at least one user can see actions of at least one other user including typing and leaving a reaction (see e.g. column 4, lines 25-37; column 6, lines 1-9; column 6, lines 40-44; and column 7, lines 27-51: as noted above, Piper discloses that multiple users can use the commenting tool provided by the server to engage in a conversation between each other. The commenting tool displays the comment(s) typed by each user in the conversation so that the other user(s) can see and respond to the comment(s) – see e.g. column 4, lines 25-37; column 6, lines 1-9; column 6, lines 40-44; and FIGS. 2D-G. Moreover, Piper suggests that the comments are displayed by the commenting tool in real time, e.g. instantaneously, to enable a “live” conversation – see e.g. column 4, lines 25-37; column 6, lines 1-9; and column 6, lines 40-44. Accordingly, the commenting tool enables the user can see actions of other users including typing, i.e. comments, of the other users. The comments can include reactions left by the other users, i.e. responses by the other users – see e.g. column 6, lines 1-9; and column 6, lines 40-44.).
Accordingly, Piper teaches a system similar to that of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that the communication widget is configured to communicate with a communication channel via an API, as is required by claim 1. Moreover, Piper does not explicitly teach that “the at least one user can see an at least one other user viewing the website before entering the communication thread” and that “the at least one user can see a plurality of users viewing the website in a real time,” as is further required by claim 1. Piper also does not explicitly disclose that “the at least one user can view an activity feed while the communication thread is triggered or resumed by the at least one other user,” and that the actions of at least one other user further include “scrolling and cursor location in a real time,” as is further required by claim 1.
Similar to Piper, McCarthy teaches implementing and managing a messaging collaborating tool embedded in website pages, whereby users can chat in real-time or near real-time (see e.g. paragraph 0009). Regarding the claimed invention, McCarthy suggests that the messaging collaboration tool is configured to communicate with a communication channel (e.g. a communication channel based on a site-specific identifier) via an API (e.g. a Common or Collaboration Application Programming Interface (“CAPI”) and/or publication application programming interfaces provided by third parties) (see e.g. paragraphs 0048-0051, 0062, 0064 and FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Piper and McCarthy before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system taught by Piper such that that the communication widget is configured to communicate with a communication channel via an API, as is taught by McCarthy. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination, because it would enable the web page to efficiently access available communication services to enable communication between users, as is evident from McCarthy (see e.g. paragraphs 0048-0051 and 0076).
Cohen generally describes a user interface and utilities that enable users to locate and interact with other users within the context of virtual places (e.g. web pages) (see e.g. column 2, line 10 – column 3, line 12). Regarding the claimed invention, Cohen teaches enabling users to see other users viewing a website before entering a communication thread with the other users, and particularly suggests enabling the users to see a plurality of other users viewing the website in real time (see e.g. column 1, lines 21-34; column 2, lines 32-36; column 9, lines 29-43; and column 12, lines 26-44; and FIG. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Piper, McCarthy and Cohen before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system taught by Piper and McCarthy such that the at least one user can see at least one other user viewing the website before entering the communication thread, and such that the at least one user can see a plurality of users viewing the website in real time, as is taught by Cohen. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination, because it can facilitate interaction between users, as is suggested by Cohen (see e.g. column 1, lines 21-34; and column 2, lines 1-13).
Roy generally describes a system and method for facilitating the real-time co-browsing of a document or web page (see e.g. column 2, lines 36-43). Regarding the claimed invention, Roy teaches that facilitating such co-browsing of a web page can comprise enabling at least one user to see the actions of at least one other user, including typing (e.g. into a form field), scrolling and cursor (e.g. pointer) location in real time (see e.g. column 2, line 59 – column 3, line 6; and column 12, lines 27-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen and Roy before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system taught by Piper, McCarthy and Cohen such that the at least one user can further see actions of the at least one other user that include scrolling and cursor location in real time, as is taught by Roy. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable the users to better collaborate, as is evident from Roy (see e.g. column 1, lines 24-32; column 2, lines 15-32; and column 2, line 59 – column 3, line 6).
Nichols generally describes a method of executing a collaborative web browsing session that uses a communication model of an instant messaging service to support a variety of collaborative browsing tasks between users (see e.g. paragraph 0026). Regarding the claimed invention, Nichols particularly teaches enabling at least one user to view an activity feed (i.e. a textual description of web page interactions) while a communication thread is triggered or resumed by at least one other user (see e.g. paragraphs 0011, 0026 and 0029-0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system taught by Piper, McCarthy, Cohen and Roy so as to enable the at least one user to view an activity feed while the communication thread is triggered or resumed by the at least one other user, as is taught by Nichols. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would allow a user to review or follow along with what other users are doing, as is taught by Nichols (see e.g. paragraph 0029). Accordingly, Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a system like that of claim 1 for collaborative website browsing combined with a communication channel.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the above-described combination of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols, and also over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0124967 to Hatfield et al. (“Hatfield”).
Regarding claim 2, Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols teach a system like that of claim 1, as is described above, which comprises at least one communication widget arranged on a website or online application and operated by at least one user. Like particularly required by claim 2, Piper teaches that the communication widget (i.e. commenting tool) further comprises:
a user input configured to accept at least one of textual content, alphanumeric content, audio, video and static graphic content (see e.g. column 3, lines 39-45; column 4, lines 25-37; column 5, line 62 – column 6, line 9, and FIGS. 2D and 2E: Piper discloses that users can use the commenting tool to leave comments. Accordingly, it is apparent that the commenting tool necessarily comprises a user input configured to accept the comments, e.g. textual content or alphanumeric content.);
a user display configured to present chat availability and further configured to display sent and received messages in the communication thread (see e.g. column 4, lines 38-46; column 5, line 62 – column 6, line 21, and FIGS. 2D, 2E and 2H: Piper discloses that the commenting tool can present a chat availability, i.e. a status, of the users and can display sent and received messages.);
wherein the communication widget can be pinned to a selected screen element via at least one user (see e.g. column 3, lines 6-20; column 3, lines 29-45; column 4, lines 48-51; and column 5, lines 31-36: Piper discloses that a user can activate the commenting tool and attach the commenting tool with a media object presented on the web page via a drag-and-drop method. This can be considered pinning the commenting tool to the media object, i.e. screen element.);
wherein the selected screen element means any element of the screen marked by at least one of the users to pin the communication widget to it (see e.g. column 3, lines 6-20; column 3, lines 29-45; column 4, lines 48-51; and column 5, lines 31-36: as noted above, Piper discloses that a user can activate the commenting tool and attach, i.e. pin, the commenting tool with a media object presented on the web page via a drag-and-drop method. Piper suggests that the commenting tool can be attached, i.e. via the drag-and-drop method, to any media object of the web page – see e.g. column 3, lines 29-45; and column 5, lines 31-36. Accordingly, the selected screen element, i.e. media object, means any media object of the screen marked by the user to pin, i.e. attach, the communication widget to it.); and
wherein to pin the communication widget means to locate the communication widget on the screen for all users who display this screen (see e.g. column 3, lines 6-20; column 3, lines 29-45; column 4, lines 48-51; and column 5, lines 31-36: as noted above, Piper discloses that a user can activate the commenting tool and attach, i.e. pin, the commenting tool with a media object presented on the web page via a drag-and-drop method. Piper suggests that the attached commenting tool can be located adjacent the media object and viewed by all users who display the web page – see e.g. column 4, lines 25-37; column 6, lines 1-9; and column 6, lines 40-67; and FIGS. 2D and 2E. Accordingly, Piper teaches that pinning the commenting tool means to locate the commenting tool on the screen, e.g. adjacent the media object, for all users who display the screen – see e.g. column 4, lines 25-37; column 6, lines 1-9; and column 6, lines 40-67; and FIGS. 2D and 2E.).
As noted above, it would have been obvious to modify the system taught by Piper, McCarthy, Cohen and Roy so as to enable the at least one user to view an activity feed while the communication thread is triggered or resumed by the at least one other user, as is taught by Nichols. Like in claim 2, Nichols particularly teaches that the user display is configured to display the activity feed view wherein the at least one other user is browsing the same page within one session (see e.g. paragraphs 0011, 0026 and 0029-0030). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols is further considered to teach a system similar to that of claim 2. Piper, however, discloses that the embodiments in which the chat availability of the users is presented, the users are required to sign in (see e.g. column 4, lines 38-46). Therefore, the communication widget would not be accessed by all website visitors like in claim 2, or be available on the website with no prior registration required like in claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends, in embodiments in which the communication widget is configured to present chat availability. Moreover, while Piper discloses that the at least one user can pin the communication widget to any object (i.e. media object) on the screen (see e.g. column 3, lines 6-20; column 3, lines 29-45; column 4, lines 48-51; and column 5, lines 31-36), Piper does not explicitly disclose that the at least one user can also pin the communication widget to any webpage space between objects like further required by claim 2.
Like noted above, McCarthy similarly teaches implementing and managing a messaging collaborating tool embedded in website pages, whereby users can chat in real-time or near real-time (see e.g. paragraph 0009). McCarthy particularly teaches that the chat functionality can be available to authenticated users, and can also be available to visitors having no prior registration (see e.g. paragraphs 0010, 0036-0039, and 0048). As such, the chat functionality could be accessed by all website visitors and be available with no prior registration required (see e.g. paragraphs 0010, 0036-0039, and 0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system taught by Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols so that, in embodiments in which users sign-in (and the chat availability of the users is thus presented by the communication widget), the chat functionality (i.e. communication widget) can still be accessed by all website visitors, with no prior registration required like taught by McCarthy. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would allow users of the chat functionality to remain anonymous, as is taught by McCarthy (see e.g. paragraphs 0038 and 0048).
Analogous to Piper, which teaches enabling a user to pin a communication widget to any object (i.e. media object) on the screen, Hatfield teaches enabling a user to pin a comment to any object (i.e. shape) within a displayed drawing (see e.g. paragraphs 0005 and 0041). Regarding the claimed invention, Hatfield further teaches that the user can also pin a comment to the space (i.e. a canvas) between objects in the drawing (see e.g. paragraphs 0006 and 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy, Nichols and Hatfield before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system taught by Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols so that, like the comments taught by Hatfield, the at least one user can also pin the communication widget to the space between objects on the screen. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would allow users to provide comments that are not directed to any particular displayed object, as is suggested by Hatfield (see e.g. paragraph 0045). Accordingly, Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy, Nichols and Hatfield are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a system like that of claim 2.
As per claim 6, Piper further teaches that the communication widget (i.e. commenting tool) further comprises:
a new widget trigger that opens the communication widget for a new communication thread (see e.g. column 5, lines 31-38; and column 5, lines 58-67; and FIGS. 2A-2D: Piper discloses that the commenting tool comprises functionality, considered a “new widget trigger” like claimed, that opens a widget for a new communication thread.);
a currently existing widget triggers resuming an already existing communication thread (see e.g. column 6, lines 1-5; and column 6, lines 45-53: Piper discloses that the commenting tool comprises functionality that opens the commenting tool for an existing communication thread, and thus enables resuming an already existing communication thread.);
wherein at least the first user can access currently available communication widgets with communication threads that can be accessed by other users at the same time (see e.g. column 4, lines 25-37; column 6, lines 1-9; column 6, lines 40-53; and column 7, lines 27-51: Piper teaches that users, including the first user, can open commenting tools to access communication threads, which are accessible by other users at the same time.); and
wherein all communication threads are available for both real-time and asynchronous communication (see e.g. column 4, lines 25-37; column 4, lines 46-63; column 6, lines 1-9; column 6, lines 40-53; and column 7, lines 27-51: Piper discloses that the communication threads are available for instantaneous communication, and are persisted for asynchronous communication.).
As noted above, it would have been obvious to modify the system taught by Piper, McCarthy, Cohen and Roy so as to enable the at least one user to view an activity feed while the communication thread is triggered or resumed by the at least one other user, as is taught by Nichols. Nichols particularly demonstrates that the at least one user can preview the activity feed while a communication thread is triggered or resumed (see e.g. paragraphs 0029-0030 and FIG. 4). Nichols further suggests that actions taken by the at least one user are saved within local storage (at least temporarily, within an IM chat stream/history) and transferred to remote storage (see e.g. paragraphs 0030-0031, 0035-0037, 0051 and 0057). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy, Nichols and Hatfield is further considered to teach a system like that of claim 6.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols, which is described above, and also over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0096789 to Lin (“Lin”).
Regarding claim 3, Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols teach a system like that of claim 1, as is described above, which entails a website or online application on which a communication widget is arranged, wherein a server comprises a messaging service and a database configured to save communication threads. Like in claim 3, Piper further teaches that the server is arranged in communication with the communication widget (see e.g. column 2, lines 62-67; column 3, lines 29-45; column 5, lines 9-67; and FIGS. 2A-2D: like noted above, Piper describes a web server that provides a web interface, e.g. a web page, wherein the web interface includes an instant or live “commenting tool,” which is considered a communication widget like claimed. Piper teaches that the server is in communication with the commenting tool, e.g. to record in memory user comments made via the commenting tool – see e.g. column 3, lines 21-28; column 3, lines 46-51; and column 7, lines 10-51.). Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols, however, do not explicitly disclose that the server comprises a virtual server configured to save data including communication threads arranged on a physical server, and wherein the messaging service and the database are configured on the virtual server, as is required by claim 3.
Virtual servers and their benefits are nevertheless well known in the art. Lin, for example, teaches using a virtual server to host a web site (see e.g. paragraphs 0023-0024). Lin teaches that a single physical server can provide multiple virtual servers (see e.g. paragraph 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy, Nichols and Lin before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system taught by Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols such that the server, on which the messaging service and database are configured and which is configured to save data including communication threads, is implemented as a virtual server like taught by Lin. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a virtual server, because it can efficiently utilize the resources of a physical server, as is evident from Lin (see e.g. paragraph 0024). Accordingly, Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy, Nichols and Lin are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a system like that of claim 3.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols, which is described above, and also over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0024975 to Ramakrishnan et al. (“Ramakrishnan”).
Regarding claim 4, Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols teach a system like that of claim 1, as is described above, which includes a messaging service arranged on a server and configured to continue communication threads displayed via a widget. Like in claim 4, Piper teaches that content sent by at least one user includes textual content, audiovisual content or live reactions and emojis (see e.g. column 3, lines 39-45; column 4, lines 25-37; column 5, line 62 – column 6, line 9, and FIGS. 2D and 2E: Piper discloses that users can use the commenting tool to send comments, which understandably comprises textual content. It is noted that the broadest, most reasonable interpretation of claim 4 requires only one of textual content, audiovisual content, and live reactions and emojis, as claim 4 recites, “the content sent by the at least one user includes textual content, audiovisual content or live reactions and emojis.”). McCarthy similarly suggests that the content sent by a user can include textual content, audiovisual content or live reactions and emojis (see e.g. paragraphs 0004-0005, 0043 and 0048). Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols, however, do not explicitly disclose that the communication widget pinned with the pinning node can be removed by at least one user who pinned the communication widget, as is further required by claim 4.
Similar to Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols, Ramakrishnan describes a system that provides a widget to enable a user to attach and share notes with respect to particular portions of a host application (e.g. a website) (see e.g. paragraphs 0004, 0020-0023, 0024, 0037, 0040 and 0042). Moreover, regarding the claimed invention, Ramakrishnan discloses that the system comprises a pinning node configured to pin a communication widget to a selected portion of the host application, wherein the widget pinned with the pinning node can be removed by the user who pinned the widget (see e.g. paragraphs 0024, 0050, 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy, Nichols and Ramakrishnan before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system taught by Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols such that the communication widget pinned with the pinning node can be removed by the user (i.e. the first user) who pinned the communication widget, like with the widget taught by Ramakrishnan. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination, because it would enable users to delete unwanted messages, as is evident from Ramakrishnan (see e.g. see e.g. paragraphs 0024 and 0056). Accordingly, Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy, Nichols and Ramakrishnan are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a system like that of claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Piper teaches that the communication node is further configured to: (i) start the communication thread via the communication widget by at least one user (see e.g. column 5, lines 31-38; and column 5, lines 58-67; and FIGS. 2A-2D: Piper discloses that the commenting tool comprises functionality for starting a communication thread by a user.); (ii) continue the communication thread asynchronously via the communication widget by at least one user (see e.g. column 6, lines 1-5; and column 6, lines 45-53: Piper discloses that the commenting tool comprises functionality that opens the widget for an existing conversation thread. Piper further discloses that the communication threads are persisted for asynchronous communication – see e.g. column 4, lines 46-63; column 6, lines 40-53; and column 7, lines 27-51); and (iii) join the communication thread via the communication widget started by the at least one user (see e.g. column 4, lines 25-37; column 6, lines 1-9; column 6, lines 40-53; and column 7, lines 27-51: Piper teaches that users can open the commenting tool to access conversations started by other users.); (iv) wherein the user who joins the communication thread can be also the agent operating the instant communication channel (see e.g. column 6, lines 1-9; and column 6, lines 40-44: Piper demonstrates that a user who joins the communication thread can also use, i.e. operate, the instant communication channel. Accordingly, the user can be considered “the agent operating the instant communication channel” like claimed. Alternatively, it is apparent that there is no limitation as to who can use the commenting tool described by Piper, and so it is understood that the user who joins the communication thread can be a provider of the instant messaging server or website. In such circumstances, the user can also be considered “the agent operating the instant communication channel” like claimed.). As described above, it would have been obvious to modify the system taught by Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols such that a user can remove the communication widget, as is taught by Ramakrishnan. In other words, the communication node is configured to remove the communication thread via communication widget by at least one user. The above-described combination of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy, Nichols and Ramakrishnan is thus further considered to teach a system like that of claim 7.
Claims 5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols, which is described above, and also over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0026775 to Retnakumari et al. (“Retnakumari”).
Regarding claim 5, Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols teach a system like that of claim 1, as is described above, which entails a website or online application on which a communication widget is arranged, and a database configured to save communication threads. Like in claim 5, Piper further teaches that the database is configured to save data sent by at least one user via the communication widget arranged in communication with the messaging service (see e.g. column 3, lines 21-28; column 3, lines 46-51; and column 7, lines 10-51), and also to save data about communication widget users (see e.g. column 3, lines 42-45; column 4, lines 1-24; and column 6, lines 9-21). The data about communication widget users necessarily includes data (e.g. username) collected via the communication widget and includes data collected via local storage or pre-chat survey (see e.g. column 3, lines 42-45; column 4, lines 1-24; and column 6, lines 9-21). Piper, however, suggests that embodiments in which the user data is stored require users to sign in (see e.g. column 3, lines 42-45; column 4, lines 1-24; and column 6, lines 9-21). Therefore, in such embodiments, the communication widget would not be available on the website for all users with no prior registration required like in claim 1, upon which claim 5 depends. Moreover, Piper does not teach removing data exchanged by at least one user via communication threads and the data exchanged by at least one user via the communication widget after a predefined amount of time to optimize storage space, as is further required by claim 5.
As noted above, McCarthy similarly teaches implementing and managing a messaging collaborating tool embedded in website pages, whereby users can chat in real-time or near real-time (see e.g. paragraph 0009). McCarthy particularly teaches that the chat functionality can be available to authenticated users (i.e. users that have data such as a user name and password stored), and can also be available to visitors having no prior registration (see e.g. paragraphs 0010, 0036-0039, and 0048). As such, the chat functionality could be accessed by all website visitors and be available with no prior registration required (see e.g. paragraphs 0010, 0036-0039, and 0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system taught by Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols so that, in embodiments in which users sign-in (and the data of these users, collected via the communication widget e.g. via local storage or pre-chat survey, is stored), the chat functionality (i.e. communication widget) can still be accessed by all website visitors, with no prior registration required like taught by McCarthy. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would allow users of the chat functionality to remain anonymous, as is taught by McCarthy (see e.g. paragraphs 0038 and 0048).
Removing data stored in a database after a predefined amount of time is well-known in the art. For example, Retnakumari generally teaches removing data from a database after a predefined time period to optimize storage space (see e.g. paragraphs 0005 and 0007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy, Nichols and Retnakumari before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system taught by Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols so that the data (e.g. data exchanged by at least one user via communication threads and the data exchanged by at least one user via the communication widget) is removed after a predefined amount of time like taught by Retnakumari to optimize storage space. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it can better improve the performance of the system, as is suggested by Retnakumari (see e.g. paragraphs 0004-0007). Accordingly, Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy, Nichols and Retnakumari are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a system like that of claim 5.
As per claim 8, Piper teaches saving data about communication widget users (see e.g. column 3, lines 42-45; column 4, lines 1-24; and column 6, lines 9-21). The data about the communication widget users necessarily includes data (e.g. a username) collected via a pre-chat survey (e.g. when the user registers), wherein the pre-chat survey is configured to accept at least one of audio, video, textual or alphanumeric content (e.g. the username) (see e.g. column 3, lines 42-45; column 4, lines 1-24; and column 6, lines 9-21). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy, Nichols and Retnakumari is further considered to teach a system like that of claim 8.
As per claim 9, Piper teaches saving data about communication widget users (see e.g. column 3, lines 42-45; column 4, lines 1-24; and column 6, lines 9-21). The data about the communication widget users necessarily includes data (e.g. a username) collected via a pre-chat survey (e.g. when the user registers), wherein the pre-chat survey is configured to be available upon a website administrator configuration of the communication widget (e.g. a configuration of the widget to request authentication credentials) used by at least one user (see e.g. column 3, lines 42-45; column 4, lines 1-24; and column 6, lines 9-21). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy, Nichols and Retnakumari is further considered to teach a system like that of claim 9.
Claims 10-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8,572,199 to Piper et al. (“Piper”), over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0185951 to Nichols et al. (“Nichols”), over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0096789 to Lin (“Lin”), and also over U.S. Patent No. 7,035,926 to Cohen et al. (“Cohen”).
Regarding claim 10, Piper generally teaches enabling users to create an instant chat and message session that is associated with a media object on the web or the Internet (see e.g. column 1, line 58 – column 2, line 13). Like claimed, Piper particularly teaches:
displaying a communication widget and arranging the communication widget on a website or online application (see e.g. column 2, lines 62-67; column 3, lines 29-45; column 5, lines 9-67; and FIGS. 2A-2D: Piper discloses that a web server provides a web interface, e.g. a web page, to a user, wherein the web interface includes an instant or live “commenting tool” that enables the user to leave live comments with respect to a media object displayed within the webpage. The commenting tool is considered an “instant communication widget” like claimed.);
accessing the communication widget by at least one user (see e.g. column 3, lines 29-45; and column 5, lines 31-67: Piper teaches that a first user can access the web interface and its commenting tool. Moreover, Piper also teaches that a second user can also access the web page and commenting tool – see e.g. column 4, lines 25-37; and column 6, lines 1-9.);
typing a message by at least one user via the communication widget displayed on a processor (see e.g. column 5, lines 31-67; and column 6, lines 40-44: Piper teaches that the first user can input a message via the commenting tool displayed by his or her computing device. Moreover, Piper further teaches that the second user can also input a message via the commenting tool displayed via his or her computing device – see e.g. column 6, lines 1-9; and column 6, lines 40-44.);
sending the message via the communication widget by at least one user with the use of the communication widget (see e.g. column 6, lines 1-9; and column 6, lines 40-44: Piper discloses that the commenting tool can be used to send the message from the first user to the second user.);
continuing communication threads displayed via the communication widget in case at least one user leaves the website and comes back (see e.g. column 3, lines 46-51; column 6, lines 45-53; and column 7, lines 21-51: Piper discloses that communication threads are persisted even after a user leaves the comment session. As such, the display of the communication threads is continued via the communication widget in case the user leaves the website and returns.);
saving the communication threads displayed via the communication widget in a database arranged on a server (see e.g. column 3, lines 21-28; column 3, lines 46-51; and column 7, lines 10-51: Piper discloses that the web server can comprise memory to record comments or conversations made by users via the commenting tool. The memory thus serves as a database to save the communication threads, i.e. conversations, displayed via the commenting tool.); and
wherein the communication widget is available on the website for all users with no prior registration required (see e.g. column 4, line 64 – column 5, line 2: Piper discloses that, in an embodiment, the commenting tool can be automatically activated and enabled upon rendering a media object on the web interface, and that therefore, the users would not need to sign-in or proceed through an authentication process to activate the commenting tool. In such circumstances, the commenting tool would be available to all users with no prior registration required.);
wherein the communication threads are composed out of messages sent with the use of a messaging service (see e.g. column 4, lines 25-37; column 6, lines 1-9; column 6, lines 40-53; and column 7, lines 27-51: Piper discloses that multiple users can use the commenting tool provided by the server to engage in a conversation between each other, and whereby other users can leave messages and be engaged in the same conversation. The server thus provides a messaging service that enables the users to continue conversations displayed via the commenting tool, wherein the communication threads are composed out of messages sent with the use of the messaging service.).
Accordingly, Piper teaches a method similar to that of claim 10, but does not explicitly teach displaying an activity feed view wherein at least one user is currently browsing the same page within one session, as is claimed. Piper also does not explicitly disclose that the server on which the database is arranged is a virtual server like claimed. Moreover, Piper does not explicitly teach viewing other users on the website within a browsing session, as is further required by claim 10.
Nichols generally describes a method of executing a collaborative web browsing session that uses a communication model of an instant messaging service to support a variety of collaborative browsing tasks between users (see e.g. paragraph 0026). Regarding the claimed invention, Nichols particularly teaches displaying an activity feed view (i.e. a textual description of web page interactions) wherein at least one user is currently browsing a same web page within a session (see e.g. paragraphs 0011, 0026 and 0029-0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Piper and Nichols before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method taught by Piper so as to display an activity feed view wherein at least one user is currently browsing the same page within one session, as is done by Nichols. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would allow a user to follow along with what other users are doing, as is taught by Nichols (see e.g. paragraph 0029).
Virtual servers and their benefits are well-known in the art. Lin, for example, teaches using a virtual server to host a web site (see e.g. paragraphs 0023-0024). Lin teaches that a single physical server can provide multiple virtual servers (see e.g. paragraph 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Piper, Nichols and Lin before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method taught by Piper and Lin such that the server, on which the database is arranged, is implemented as a virtual server like taught by Lin. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a virtual server, because it can efficiently utilize the resources of a physical server, as is evident from Lin (see e.g. paragraph 0024).
Cohen generally describes a user interface and utilities that enable users to locate and interact with other users within the context of virtual places (e.g. web pages) (see e.g. column 2, line 10 – column 3, line 12). Regarding the claimed invention, Cohen particularly teaches enabling users to view other users on a website within a browsing session (see e.g. column 1, lines 21-34; column 9, lines 29-43; and column 12, lines 26-44; and FIG. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Piper, Nichols, Lin and Cohen before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method taught by Piper, Nichols and Lin such that the at least one user can view other users on the website within a browsing session, as is taught by Cohen. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination, because it can facilitate interaction between users, as is suggested by Cohen (see e.g. column 1, lines 21-34; and column 2, lines 1-13). Accordingly, Piper, Nichols, Lin and Cohen are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 10, which is for collaborative website browsing combined with an instant communication channel.
As per claim 11, Piper further teaches:
triggering the communication widget by at least one user viewing the website (see e.g. column 3, lines 29-45; and column 5, lines 31-67: Piper teaches that a user viewing a website can activate a commenting tool, i.e. a communication widget.);
typing the message including at least one of textual content, alphanumeric content, voice, video or graphic content by at least one user (see e.g. column 5, lines 31-67; and column 6, lines 40-44: Piper teaches that the user can input a textual or alphanumeric message via the commenting tool displayed by his or her computing device.);
sending the message typed by the at least one user (see e.g. column 6, lines 1-9; and column 40-45: Piper teaches that messages input by the user can be provided to a second user.);
saving a message sent by the at least one user and displaying the message via the communication widget wherein the communication threads are displayed on the processor (see e.g. column 3, lines 21-28; column 3, lines 46-51; column 78, lines 45-53; and column 7, lines 10-51: Piper discloses that the web server can comprise memory to record the messages made by users via the commenting tool. Piper further teaches that communication threads including the messages sent from the first user to the second user can be displayed via the commenting tool on the computing device, i.e. processor, of each of the users – see e.g. column 6, lines 40-454 and FIG. 2F.); and
wherein the communication widget can be pinned to a selected screen element via at least one user (see e.g. column 3, lines 6-20; column 3, lines 29-45; column 4, lines 48-51; and column 5, lines 31-36: Piper discloses that a user can activate the commenting tool and attach the commenting tool with a media object presented on the web page via a drag-and-drop method. This can be considered pinning the commenting tool to the media object, i.e. screen element.); and
wherein the message sent by the at least one user can be accessed by all website visitors (see e.g. column 4, lines 25-37; column 6, lines 45-53; and column 7, lines 38-51: Piper discloses that messages sent by users are persisted and available to all other website users).
Accordingly, the above-described combination of Piper, Nichols, Lin and Cohen further teaches a method like that of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Piper, Nichols, Lin and Cohen teach a method like that of claim 10, as is described above, which includes saving communication threads displayed via widgets in a database arranged on a virtual server. Piper particularly teaches saving data exchanged by at least one user via the communication widget including communication threads on a server, wherein saving by the messaging service and database is configured on the server (see e.g. column 4, lines 25-37; column 6, lines 1-9; column 6, lines 40-53; and column 7, lines 27-51: Piper discloses that multiple users can use the commenting tool provided by the server to engage in a conversation between each other, and whereby other users can leave messages and be engaged in the same conversation. The server thus provides a messaging service and database that saves data exchanged by users in communication threads, and enables the users to continue conversations displayed via the commenting tool.). Moreover, Piper suggests that the communication widget is configured to interact with the server to save communication data, wherein a saving mechanism is integrated into the server to store and manage the data exchanged through the widget (see e.g. column 3, lines 21-28; column 3, lines 46-51; and column 7, lines 10-26). However, Piper does not explicitly teach that the server is a virtual server, as is required by claim 12. Nevertheless, as described above, Lin teaches using a virtual server to host a web site (see e.g. paragraphs 0023-0024). Lin teaches that a single physical server can provide multiple virtual servers (see e.g. paragraph 0024). Like described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Piper, Nichols and Lin before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method taught by Piper and Nichols such that the server, on which the messaging service and database are configured and which is configured to save data exchanged by at least one user via communication widget including communication threads, is implemented as a virtual server like taught by Lin. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a virtual server, because it can efficiently utilize the resources of a physical server, as is evident from Lin (see e.g. paragraph 0024). Accordingly, Piper, Nichols, Lin and Cohen are further considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 12.
As per claim 15, Piper further teaches:
triggering a new communication widget that opens a new communication thread (see e.g. column 5, lines 31-38; and column 5, lines 58-67; and FIGS. 2A-2D: Piper discloses that the commenting tool comprises functionality that opens a widget for a new communication thread.);
triggering a currently existing communication widget for an already existing communication thread (see e.g. column 6, lines 1-5; and column 6, lines 45-53: Piper discloses that the commenting tool comprises functionality that opens the widget for an existing conversation thread.);
wherein the at least one user can access other currently available communication widgets started by other users (see e.g. column 4, lines 25-37; column 6, lines 1-9; column 6, lines 40-53; and column 7, lines 27-51: Piper teaches that users, including the first user, can open a commenting tool to access conversations started by other users.); and
wherein all communication threads are available for both real-time and asynchronous communication (see e.g. column 4, lines 25-37; column 4, lines 46-63; column 6, lines 1-9; column 6, lines 40-53; and column 7, lines 27-51: Piper discloses that the communication threads are available for instantaneous communication, and are persisted for asynchronous communication.).
Accordingly, the above-described combination of Piper, Nichols, Lin and Cohen is further considered to teach a method like that of claim 15.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Piper, Nichols, Lin and Cohen, which is described above, over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0024975 to Ramakrishnan et al. (“Ramakrishnan”), and also over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0124967 to Hatfield et al. (“Hatfield”).
Regarding claim 13, Piper, Nichols, Lin and Cohen teach a method like that of claim 10, as is described above, which includes saving communication threads displayed via widgets in a database arranged on a virtual server. Like in claim 13, Piper further teaches: (i) collecting the communication threads from communication widgets and saving the communication threads in a database by a communication node (e.g. software functionality) (see e.g. column 3, lines 21-51; and column 7, lines 10-51); and (ii) pinning (e.g. attaching) the communication widget (e.g. commenting tool) to an element of the website selected by the at least one user to trigger the use of a pinning node (see e.g. column 3, lines 6-20; column 3, lines 29-45; column 4, lines 48-51; and column 5, lines 31-36). As described above, it would have been obvious to modify the method taught by Piper so as to display an activity feed view like taught by Nichols to at least one other user that is currently browsing the same page within one session. Piper, Nichols, Lin and Cohen, however, do not explicitly disclose that pinning of the communication widget with the pinning node can be removed by the at least one user, as is required by claim 13. Moreover, while Piper discloses that the at least one user can pin the communication widget to any object (i.e. media object) on the screen (see e.g. column 3, lines 6-20; column 3, lines 29-45; column 4, lines 48-51; and column 5, lines 31-36), Piper, Nichols, Lin and Cohen do not explicitly disclose that the at least one user can also pin the communication widget to any webpage space between objects like further required by claim 13.
As described above, Ramakrishnan teaches enabling a user to attach and share notes with respect to particular portions of a host application (e.g. a website) (see e.g. paragraphs 0004, 0020-0023, 0024, 0037, 0040 and 0042). Moreover, regarding the claimed invention, Ramakrishnan further teaches employing a pinning node configured to pin a communication widget to a selected portion of the host application, wherein the widget pinned with the pinning node can be removed by the user or another user (see e.g. paragraphs 0024, 0050, 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Piper, Nichols, Lin, Cohen and Ramakrishnan before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method taught by Piper, Nichols, Lin and Cohen so that at the at least one user can remove the communication widget pinned with the pinning node, as is taught by Ramakrishnan. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination, because it would enable users to delete unwanted messages, as is evident from Ramakrishnan (see e.g. see e.g. paragraphs 0024 and 0056).
Analogous to Piper, which teaches enabling a user to pin a communication widget to any object (i.e. media object) on the screen, Hatfield teaches enabling a user to pin a comment to any object (i.e. shape) within a displayed drawing (see e.g. paragraphs 0005 and 0041). Regarding the claimed invention, Hatfield further teaches that the user can also pin a comment to the space (i.e. a canvas) between objects in the drawing (see e.g. paragraphs 0006 and 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Piper, Nichols, Lin, Cohen, Ramakrishnan and Hatfield before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method taught by Piper, Nichols, Lin, Cohen and Ramakrishnan so that, like the comments taught by Hatfield, the at least one user can also pin the communication widget to the space between objects on the screen. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would allow users to provide comments that are not directed to any particular displayed object, as is suggested by Hatfield (see e.g. paragraph 0045). Accordingly, Piper, Nichols, Lin, Cohen, Ramakrishnan and Hatfield are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 13.
Regarding claim 16, Piper further teaches: (i) starting the communication threads exchanged via the communication widget by at least one user (see e.g. column 5, lines 31-38; and column 5, lines 58-67; and FIGS. 2A-2D: Piper discloses that the commenting tool comprises functionality for starting a communication by the first user.); (ii) continuing the communication threads asynchronously via the communication widget by at least one user (see e.g. column 6, lines 1-5; and column 6, lines 45-53: Piper discloses that the commenting tool comprises functionality that opens the widget for an existing conversation thread. Piper further discloses that the communication threads are persisted for asynchronous communication – see e.g. column 4, lines 46-63; column 6, lines 40-53; and column 7, lines 27-51); and (iii) wherein at least one user can join a currently existing communication thread via the communication widget started by the at least one user instead of starting a new communication thread (see e.g. column 4, lines 25-37; column 6, lines 1-9; column 6, lines 40-53; and column 7, lines 27-51: Piper teaches that users can open the commenting tool to access conversations started by other users, instead of starting a new conversation.). As described above, it would have been obvious to modify the method taught by Piper, Nichols, Lin and Cohen so that at least one user can remove the communication widget like taught by Ramakrishnan, i.e. it would have been obvious to remove the communication threads via communication widget by at least one user. Accordingly, the above-described combination of Piper, Nichols, Lin, Cohen, Ramakrishnan and Hatfield is further considered to teach method like that of claim 16.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Piper, Nichols, Lin and Cohen, which is described above, over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0198124 to McCarthy (“McCarthy”), and also over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0026775 to Retnakumari et al. (“Retnakumari”).
Regarding claim 14, Piper, Nichols, Lin and Cohen teach a method like that of claim 10, as is described above, which entails saving communication threads displayed via widgets in a database arranged on a virtual server, wherein the communication threads are composed out of messages sent with the user of a messaging service. Like in claim 14, Piper particularly teaches saving data exchanged by at least one user via the communication widget including communication threads sent by the messaging service (see e.g. column 3, lines 21-28; column 3, lines 46-51; and column 7, lines 10-51), and saving data exchanged by at least one user via a communication widget about the at least one user using the communication widget (see e.g. column 3, lines 42-45; column 4, lines 1-24; and column 6, lines 9-21). The data exchanged by at least one user via the communication widget about the at least one user necessarily includes data (e.g. username) collected via local storage or a pre-chat survey (see e.g. column 3, lines 42-45; column 4, lines 1-24; and column 6, lines 9-21). Moreover, as noted above, it would have been obvious to modify the method taught by Piper so as to display an activity feed view like taught by Nichols of at least one other user that is currently browsing the same page within one session. That is, like in claim 14, the data exchanged by at least one user via the communication widget about the at least one user further includes an activity feed. Piper, however, suggests that embodiments in which the user data is stored require users to sign in (see e.g. column 3, lines 42-45; column 4, lines 1-24; and column 6, lines 9-21). Therefore, in such embodiments, the communication widget would not be available on the website for all users with no prior registration required like in claim 10, upon which claim 14 depends. Moreover, Piper does not teach removing the data exchanged by at least one user via the communication widget including communication threads after a predefined amount of time to optimize data storage space, and removing the data exchanged by at least one user via the communication widget about the at least one user after a predefined amount of time to optimize storage space, as is further required by claim 14.
Similar to Piper, McCarthy teaches implementing and managing a messaging collaborating tool embedded in website pages, whereby users can chat in real-time or near real-time (see e.g. paragraph 0009). McCarthy particularly teaches that the chat functionality can be available to authenticated users (i.e. users that have data such as a user name and password stored), and can also be available to visitors having no prior registration (see e.g. paragraphs 0010, 0036-0039, and 0048). As such, the chat functionality could be accessed by all website visitors and be available with no prior registration required (see e.g. paragraphs 0010, 0036-0039, and 0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Piper, Nichols, Lin, Cohen and McCarthy before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method taught by Piper, Nichols, Lin and Cohen so that, in embodiments in which users sign-in (and the data of these users, collected via the communication widget e.g. via local storage or pre-chat survey, is stored), the chat functionality (i.e. communication widget) can still be accessed by all website visitors, with no prior registration required like taught by McCarthy. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would allow users of the chat functionality to remain anonymous, as is taught by McCarthy (see e.g. paragraphs 0038 and 0048).
Removing data stored in a database after a predefined amount of time is well-known in the art. For example, Retnakumari generally teaches removing data from a database after a predefined time period to optimize storage space (see e.g. paragraphs 0005 and 0007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Piper, Nichols, Lin, Cohen, McCarthy and Retnakumari before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method taught by Piper, Nichols, Lin, Cohen and McCarthy so that the data (e.g. the data about communication threads and the data exchanged by at least one user via the communication widget) is removed after a predefined amount of time like taught by Retnakumari to optimize storage space. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it can better improve the performance of the system, as is suggested by Retnakumari (See e.g. paragraphs 0004-0007). Accordingly, Piper, Nichols, Lin, Cohen, McCarthy and Retnakumari are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 14.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s amendments to claims 5 and 12. In response to these amendments, the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections presented in the previous Office Action to claims 5, 8, 9 and 12 are respectfully withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections to claim 1, the Applicant argues that Piper’s instant commenting tool is activated for commenting on a web media object, which is different from the claimed pinning node that allows chat threads to be positioned freely, including over undefined canvas regions.
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits that the broadest, reasonable interpretation of claim 1 does not require a pinning node that allows chat threads to be positioned freely, including over undefined canvas regions. Claim 1 particularly recites, “wherein the pinning node is further configured to assign the communication widget to a selected screen element on a user interface on the website, to blank spaces, or undefined objects upon at least first selection.” The claim thus provides for selection from a list of alternatives: “a selected screen element on a user interface on the website,” “blank spaces,” and “undefined objects.” When a claim element requires selection from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As noted, Piper teaches one of the alternatives (i.e. assigning the communication widget to a selected screen element/media object), and thus teaches “wherein the pinning node is further configured to assign the communication widget to a selected screen element on a user interface on the website, to blank spaces, or undefined objects upon the at least first selection.” The Examiner further respectfully notes that Hatfield, which is applied above in the rejection for claim 2, teaches enabling a user to pin a comment to any space (i.e. on a background canvas) between displayed objects (see e.g. paragraphs 0006 and 0045). The Examiner thus respectfully maintains that the above-described combination of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols teaches enabling users to assigning a communication widget to blank spaces or undefined objects.
The Applicant further argues that Piper does not provide pre-chat presence awareness (i.e. co-browsing), and lacks any disclosure of cursor position or scroll state awareness.
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits that, like noted above, Piper teaches displaying a real-time status (e.g. “ON-LINE”) for users visiting a web interface (see e.g. column 4, lines 38-46). Piper thus can be considered to provide a facility for revealing concurrent visitors’ presence. Regardless, like further noted above, Cohen teaches enabling users to see indicators of other users viewing a website before entering a communication thread with the other users (see e.g. column 1, lines 21-34; column 2, lines 32-36; column 9, lines 29-43; and column 12, lines 26-44; and FIG. 10). The Examiner thus respectfully maintains that the above-described combination of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols teaches “wherein the at least one user can see an at least one other user viewing the website before entering the communication thread” as is recited in claim 1.
The Examiner further respectfully notes that the rejection does not rely on Piper to teach providing awareness of cursor position or scroll state awareness. Instead, like noted above, the rejection applies Roy’s teaching of facilitating co-browsing of a web page by enabling at least one user to see the actions of at least one other user, including typing (e.g. into a form field), scrolling and cursor (e.g. pointer) location in real time (see e.g. column 2, line 59 – column 3, line 6; and column 12, lines 27-44). Accordingly, the Examiner respectfully maintains that the above-described combination of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols teaches “wherein the at least one user can see actions of at least one other user including typing, leaving reaction, scrolling and cursor location in a real time” as is recited in claim 1.
Further regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that McCarthy fails to teach pre-thread presence, cursor/scroll broadcasts, or the blank spaces/undefined objects pinning feature like claimed.
However, in response, the Examiner respectfully submits that the rejection does not rely upon McCarthy to provide such teachings. McCarthy is instead applied to teach the limitation reciting, “wherein the communication widget is configured to communicate with a communication channel via an API.” As noted above, it is Cohen that teaches pre-chat presence like in claim 1 (i.e. “wherein the at least one user can see an at least one other user viewing the website before entering the communication thread”), and Roy that teaches the claimed features for cursor/scroll broadcasts (i.e. “wherein the at least one user can see actions of at least one other user including typing, leaving reaction, scrolling and cursor location in a real time.”). As further noted above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 does not require pinning to blank spaces or undefined objects. The Examiner thus respectfully maintains that the above-described combination of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols teaches pre-thread presence and cursor/scroll broadcasts in the manner claimed.
Further regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that Cohen teaches presence information that is associated with a “virtual place” rather than with a webpage like claimed.
In response, the Examiner respectfully notes that Cohen discloses that a virtual place can be a webpage (see e.g. column 4, lines 35-43). In such embodiments, Cohen’s teaching of indicating other users in the same virtual place and thereafter enabling the user to communicate with another of these users (see e.g. column 9, lines 29-43) is considered to teach the limitation reciting, “wherein the at least one user can see an at least one other user viewing the website before entering the communication thread.”
The Applicant further argues that Cohen’s communication interfaces are external to the webpage, whereas the claimed communication widget is displayed on the webpage interface itself and is pinnable to any screen element, including blank spaces or undefined areas. The Applicant also argues that Cohen does not disclose the visibility of real-time navigation behaviors such as scrolling or cursor position.
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits that the rejection does not rely on Cohen to teach any of these features. The primary reference, Piper, already teaches a communication widget that is displayed on a web page and that is pinnable to a selected screen element (see e.g. column 3, lines 6-20; column 3, lines 29-45; column 4, lines 48-51; and column 5, lines 31-36). As noted above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 does not actually require pinning a communication widget to blank spaces or undefined objects. Moreover, like further noted above, the rejection relies on Roy (not Cohen) to teach the claimed features for indicating real-time navigation behaviors such as scrolling or cursor position. The Examiner thus again respectfully maintains that the above-described combination of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols teaches a communication widget that is displayed on a webpage interface and is pinnable to any screen element, including blank spaces or undefined areas, in addition to the claimed features for indicating navigation behaviors such as scrolling or cursor position.
Further regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that “Roy cannot properly supply the missing pinning to blank/undefined regions, no registration requirement, or pre-thread presence view, and its event-replay focus is materially different from the claimed on-page communication widget semantics.” (Applicant’s Remarks, page 14). The Applicant similarly argues that Nichols fails to suggest “the claimed pre-thread, in-page presence indicators for all visitors on the same page, nor the DOM-level pinning to blank/undefined regions, nor the ‘widget available…with no prior registration.’” (Applicant’s Remarks, page 15).
In response, the Examiner again respectfully submits that, as described above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 does not require pinning to blank/undefined regions. There is also no claimed requirement that the pinning be “DOM-level.” Moreover, Roy and Nichols are not relied upon for the elimination of any registration requirement. As is noted above, Piper and/or McCarthy already provide such a teaching. The commenting tool taught by Piper is available to all users with no prior registration required (see e.g. column 4, line 64 – column 5, line 2). McCarthy provides a similar teaching (see e.g. paragraphs 0010, 0036-0039, and 0048). The rejection similarly does not rely on Roy or Nichols to teach a pre-thread presence view. As described above, Cohen already teaches providing a pre-chat presence view like in claim 1. Accordingly, the Examiner again respectfully maintains that the above-described combination of Piper, McCarthy, Cohen, Roy and Nichols teaches the claimed features regarding registration and the pre-thread presence view.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections to claim 10, the Applicant argues that Piper does not teach or suggest the claimed activity feed or real-time co-presence on a webpage.
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits that the rejection does not rely on Piper to teach the claimed activity feed or co-presence. Instead, the rejection uses Nichols’s teaching of displaying an activity feed view. The rejection also relies on Cohen to teach co-presence like claimed (i.e. “viewing other users on the website within a browsing session.”).
Regarding Nichols, the Applicant argues that the activity feed described by Nichols is a textual narration after an action occurs, not a continuous real-time feed embedded in the webpage interface.
In response, the Examiner respectfully notes that claim 10 does not require a continuous real-time feed embedded in a webpage interface. Claim 10 instead recites, “displaying an activity feed view wherein at least one user is currently browsing the same page within one session.” Claim10 does not recite that the activity feed is a continuous real-time feed, or that it is embedded in the webpage. Like noted in the above rejection, Nichols teaches displaying an activity feed view (i.e. a textual description of web page interactions) wherein at least one user is currently browsing a same web page within a session (see e.g. paragraphs 0011, 0026 and 0029-0030). Nichols is thus considered to teach displaying an activity feed like required by claim 10. Regardless, the Examiner respectfully notes that Nichols describes a “Follow Along” button that, when toggled on, automatically executes in the local web browser web actions performed by remote users (see e.g. paragraph 0040). The automatically-executed actions in the local web browser can be considered a continuous, understandably real-time, feed embedded in the webpage.
The Applicant further argues that Nichols requires participants to join a collaborative browsing session before viewing another user’s interactions.
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits that, even if Nichols requires participants to join a browsing session, Nichols would still read on the claimed activity feed view. As noted above, Nichols teaches displaying an activity feed view (i.e. a textual description of web page interactions) wherein at least one user is currently browsing a same web page within a session. Claim 10 does not require displaying such an activity feed view before a user joins a browsing session.
Regarding Cohen, the Applicant argues that Cohen is organized around “virtual places” that user’s join, independent of what webpage they are currently viewing.
In response, the Examiner respectfully notes that Cohen discloses that a virtual place can be a webpage (see e.g. column 4, lines 35-43). In such embodiments, Cohen’s teaching of indicating other users in the same virtual place (see e.g. column 9, lines 29-43) is considered to teach the limitation in claim 10 reciting, “viewing other users on the website within a browsing session.”
The Applicant further argues that Cohen teaches communications that occur though an external panel, e.g. a chat control, not through an on-page communication widget pinned to the webpage interface.
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits that the rejection does not rely on Cohen to teach the communication widget. The primary reference, Piper, already teaches displaying a communication widget and arranging the communication widget on a website or online application (see e.g. column 2, lines 62-67; column 3, lines 29-45; column 5, lines 9-67). Claim 10 does not include any recitations about “pinning” the communication widget. Regardless, the communication widget taught by Piper can be pinned to media objects within the webpage (see e.g. column 3, lines 6-20; column 3, lines 29-45; column 4, lines 48-51; and column 5, lines 31-36). The Examiner thus respectfully maintains that the combination of Piper, Nichols, Lin and Cohen teaches “displaying a communication widget and arranging the communication widget on a website or online application” like recited in claim 10.
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have thus been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE T BASOM whose telephone number is (571)272-4044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:30 pm, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matt Ell can be reached at (571)270-3264. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
BTB
4/1/2026
/Mariela Reyes/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2142